Another critical Fox News opinion on Trump

This one was written by Jon Summers.   It's title:   "Opinion:  Trump's $2T tantrum -- He needs to put on his big boy pants and get to work."

*     *     *     *     *

"This isn’t the first time we’ve seen President Trump have a temper tantrum. But Wednesday’s was one of epic proportions. Because it didn’t just play out in the Rose Garden where the cameras were, it started inside the White House where, just moments before, the president stormed out of a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. In doing so, Trump blew up a plan to put Americans to work by investing $2 trillion in America’s infrastructure including roads, bridges, and airports.

"Remember the last time Trump walked out of a meeting with these same people? The government shut down, small businesses were hurt, and 800,000 federal workers went without pay for more than a month. And while it probably felt good at the time, Trump came out the biggest political loser because he wanted credit for shutting down the government.

"So, here we are again. This time Trump has decided he is not going to work with Congressional Democrats unless they cease all investigations of him. In other words, only if they stop doing their constitutionally mandated job of conducting oversight. Unbelievable.

"Clearly, he doesn’t realize that everything he has done so far – from stonewalling Congress to walking out of Wednesday’s meeting – only highlights that he’s hiding something. And whatever he is hiding must be really, really bad. . . . 

"Make no mistake, Trump’s Herculean effort to conceal whatever he’s hiding is not only undermining the core of our democracy, with Wednesday’s tantrum it’s costing jobs and infrastructure. Specifically, the proposal Democrats had hoped to discuss includes $140 billion to fix roads and bridges, $115 billion to modernize America’s water and sewer systems, and $40 billion to improve our airports and make the airspace safer. And that is literally just the beginning.

"You know what $2 trillion in infrastructure spending means? Jobs, millions of them. In fact, the infrastructure plan Democrats proposed last year with half the price tag, would have created 15 million jobs. Imagine doubling that number. Sadly, because of Trump’s temper tantrum imagining is all we can do. . . . 

"I get it. He’s mad. He doesn’t like being under investigation. Who would? If he wants to yell, scream, and throw things in private to get it out of his system, fine (just don’t hurt anyone). But when you are the president of the United States you have an obligation to rise above it for the good of the nation. . . . 

"Regardless of where you stand . . . someone . . . will be ultimately exposed. If you are a Republican hardliner, you’re probably hoping it will be Democrats for “overreaching.” If it’s not the Democrats, then it will be the president. Regardless of what you believe, or fear, the truth will come out. In the meantime, the president and leaders in Congress must work together for the good of the nation.

"It’s time for the president to swallow hard, put on his big boy pants, and get to work."

*     *     *     *     *

I'm not suggesting that there has been a complete turn-over at Fox.   Here are some other headlines that appeared Thursday on the same page as this Summers' piece.

Alan Dershowitz:   "Congress is not above the law when it comes to impeachment;  don't weaponize the constitution."

RNC Chairwoman McDaniel:   "Enough is enough from Pelosi and Schumer;   Dems must put people over politics."

Sean Hannity:    "Mueller's team was filled with Clinton allies."

Ari Fleischer:   "Joe Biden is 'always wrong' on the big issues."

The truth is, however, that it's a fairly balanced set of opinion pieces.  I actually had to search to find those four titles to illustrate my point that they also still print negative stories about Democrats.  Which compels me to continue looking for the answer to:   what's happening at Fox News?

Ralph

On not taking the bait

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has already learned one invaluable political skill -- not taking the bait, when an interviewer tries to get him to respond in kind to a quoted jibe.

Anderson Cooper did it to him early on when he quoted something that a gay Republican had said that was designed to get a rise out of Pete.    Anderson repeated the quote and asked Pete what his response was:

Buttigieg:   (with a one-second pause so that it did not seem canned)  "Anderson, I'm not a master fisherman;  but I can recognize bait.   And I'm not going to take it."

The audience loved it.

He did it again, as I heard quoted by one of the news show hosts on MSNBC:

Host:   "President Trump says that the country is not ready for a gay president.   What do you say to the president?"

Buttigieg:  "Tell him I said 'Hi.'"

I don't mean to imply that Pete runs from a fight.   He simply chooses his fights.   He was pretty gutsy going on Fox News and criticizing two of their biggest stars.    But he wasn't there to fight with the network.

He was there to win over some of their audience.   So he focused on them and their needs and concerns -- and what solutions he might have to offer them.   He apparently won over at least some of them, given the standing ovation they gave him.

Ralph

What's happening at Fox News?

Something is going on at FoxNews.   No, I haven't started watching them on TV, but I do find articles cropping up in my computer news feed that surprise me.   I've even quoted from them a couple of times.

And then there was the town hall this past weekend on Fox television moderated by Chris Wallace (always a decent man and a good interviewer).   The town hall featured Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, who was openly critical of a couple of their opinion hosts (Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham) and decried the "media noise machine on the right."

But, having established that he could dish out some barbs, he made it clear that he was not there to fight.   He was there because he wanted to reach the audience that watches Fox and to talk about things that matter to them.  To give them his perspective on things that concern them.

And at the end of the hour, this audience gave him a standing ovation, which brought forth a surprised "Wow. . . a standing ovation" from Wallace.

And then Monday, I found this essay by Roger Fisk on the Fox News site that is critical of the Trump administration and Trump himself.  Here are some disconnected excerpts to give you the flavor:

"No amount of press spin or social media chest thumping can distract from the fact that the White House’s Barr-infused euphoria of April has curdled.  The drumbeat of bad news for the administration comes mainly from the rhythm of their own missteps." 

"Barr’s verbal jujitsu did its original job, most likely the one he was hired to provide – a singular soap box for three weeks during which the president used Barr’s summary to trumpet exaggerated and often plainly wrong interpretations of the report."

"Multiple investigations are underway that remain secret. . . .  The New York Times has reported that Trump lost $1 billion over a 10-year period that allowed him to pay virtually no income tax as a result."

"This White House gives no indication of having . . . discipline.  Its day to day operations are geared more toward providing the president with his daily allowance of grievance than it is on governing. This is what happens when morally rudderless people convene around a vain leader whose only constituency and motivation is the face he sees every day in the mirror. Everything else is deception.
The drumbeat continues."

Read that last underlined sentence again.    In a Fox News publication!!!   Incredible.

Now, please tell me what's going on over at Fox News?    We can't keep calling it TrumpTV, if this keeps up.

Ralph

Irony . . . oh, sweet irony

Donald Trump's lawyers plan to file an appeal of the Federal District Court's decision that requires Trump's accounting firm to turn over his financial records that have been subpoenaed by the House committee.    The appeal will go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

And who, you may wonder, is the chief judge on that court?    None other than his honor, Judge Merrick Garland, the distinguished appointee that President Obama nominated to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy -- but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ruled that it was too close to the election of a new president and it should wait for "the people to decide."

There was, of course, no legal basis for that claim.   It was close to a year before the election, Obama made a timely nomination, and there was ample time to vet, debate, and make a decision about confirmation.

Now, if the roles were reversed, I'm sure the Republicans would be rejoicing, sure that "their man" would rule in their favor and against their opponents.

But I'm rejoicing because I know that Garland is a principled lawyer who will do the right thing, whatever that it.    I want him, by example, to give the Republicans a lesson in integrity.

First, the law is clearly on the side of Congress.   The federal district judge made that very clear when she wrote that it was simply not fathomable that the Constitution would give Congress the power to remove a president for wrong-doing and then not also give them the right to investigate whether there was wrong-doing.

Second, if Garland feels he cannot be completely unbiased in this case, I'm sure Garland's integrity is such that he will recuse himself.

Frankly, I hope that is the outcome -- and the the other judges follow the law and decide in favor of Congress and not Trump.    Because I want the Republicans to see an example of integrity and the law applied correctly, without special favors or manipulations.  But, frankly, the law is so clear, there really should be no need for him to recuse.  And if he doesn't then Republicans may falsely claim that he should have.

And then I want Trump to lose the election, and I want the new Democratic president to fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court by nominating Merrick Garland for the seat.

Ralph

Judge grants Democrats' quest for Trump's financial records

Federal Judge Amit P. Mehta, based in Washington, DC, has sided with the House Oversight Committee in its attempt to get President Trump's financial records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA.    Mazars had originally said it would comply, but then the Trump Organization sued to prevent them from turning over the records.    Judge Mehta's decision was the resolution of that dispute.

This is being seen as "a major ruling that breathes new life into Democrats' ongoing efforts to probe the president's financial dealings," in the words of reporter Gregg Re writing for Fox News.

The subpoena for the financial records was prompted by Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen's testimony to Congress that the president "routinely and improperly altered financial statements."

Mehta's 41 page opinion acknowledged that he was "well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States."    He also wrote that the Democrats' subpoena fell within well-established congressional investigative powers and that he would not stay his ruling pending appeal.

Mehta wrote further:   "It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry."

[That last sentence is worth re-reading and thinking about.  In one sentence, it simply destroys the Trump argument that Congress has no proper legislative purpose in requesting documents and witness testimony.]

This is an important win in court for the Democrats.   Add this to the weekend news that a Republican congressman, Justin Amash (R-MI), has taken a principled stand, saying that, in his reading of the Mueller report, he concludes that the president's has engaged in actions and patterns of behavior that rise to the threshold of impeachment.

These two developments suddenly change the discouraged, dead-end feeling that was setting in, as the Trump administration's complete stonewalling of any investigative requests:   documents, witness interviews, subpoenas.

Now, if the Democrats will find their courage and their principles -- and stop thinking so narrowly about the political risks, it's time to begin.

Ralph

Brief news takes

1.  Now that Michael Flynn is out of favor with Trump, the president is whining that no one warned him about Flynn, and they should have.    Fact check:    They did, and he made him National Security Director anyway.   Among those who warned Trump about Flynn were:   President Barack Obama (Trump specifically complains that Obama didn't warn him, when in fact on May 17, 2017 CNN reported that in a meeting with Obama in the Oval Office, just a few days after his election, Obama had specifically warned Trump not to appoint Flynn as his NSA, saying he "isn't up to the job."   In addition, Gov. Chris Christie -- a confidante of Trump -- wrote in his book:   “If I were president-elect of the United States, I wouldn’t let General Flynn into the White House, let alone give him a job.”    And then we all saw Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testifying before Congress, during which she told of making a trip to the White House to talk with the WH Counsel Don McGahn to warn him that Flynn might be compromised by the Russians.

So come on, Little Donald.   Do something daring.   Take responsibility and say you were wrong.   Admit that you just didn't take the advice, and stop saying that nobody warned you.

My guess is that it's not so simple as Trump just not listening and taking advice.   My guess is that he knew full well that Flynn was a direct pipeline to the Kremlin -- and he wanted that.   Until now, when it has backfired on him, Flynn has been a cooperating witness for Mueller, and he makes Trump look bad.

So now Trump reverts to his habit of always blaming someone else.   It's never his responsibility --- always anyone else, with a special delight when he can somehow invoke Barack Obama as the one.    Won't work this time.   It's memorialized in CNN's investigative reporting.


2.  Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) has put out a statement that, after having read Mueller's full report, Amash concludes that "President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct."   He further states that Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller's report."

This is a first -- a sitting Republican politician saying that Mueller's report reveals impeachable conduct on the part of the president.   Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) disagreed with him, Romney being the only other senator (still in the Senate) who had been critical of the president;   That's less important than the fact that one Republican politician is now breaking ranks and saying the Emperor Has No Clothes.


3.   There's been a spate of passage of the most restrictive state anti-abortion bills in recent history -- which include laws that ascribe "personhood' to a one-day-old fetus in the womb.   The significance of this is that this grants the status of human being, with all basic rights, to the fetus -- including prosecuting for murder anyone who destroys such an embryo or fetus.    For reference, see my previous posting on Friday in which I voice my disagreement with this and discuss the conflicting rights of a woman to determine what happens to her body vs the rights of the "human" fetus that, by these laws, is granted the right to life.

In thinking more about the implications of "personhood" for an embryo/fetus this young, some questions (some silly) came to mind.   Such as:
    a.  Can the parents of a week old fetus take an extra dependent deduction on their income tax?
    b.  If a wealthy young man rapes a woman and, in the act, is shot and killed by an angry husband;   and if that rape results in a pregnancy, will the resulting child inherit the rapist-father's fortune?
    c.   If the mother, 6 weeks pregnant, is entitled to food stamps by her low income, is she also entitled to an extra ration of stamps to cover this extra "person" in her uterus?
    We could think of more, but you get the drift . . .


4.   CNN has reported on "Four Ways Trump Is Trying to Be King."    Senate Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler made the accusation in one of his public statements over his frustration that the White House is stone-walling any and all of his committee subpoenas.    Here are the four ways, according to the CNN article:

    a.  Delegitimizing Oversight.    The U.S. Constitution gives to Congress the right and duty to provide oversight of the Executive Branch of government.    The current White House is refusing to turn over documents or to respond to subpoenas for interviews.  In other words, the White House is not cooperating with the House in fulfilling its constitutionally mandated responsibility to oversee the Executive branch.

    b.  Using the bully pulpit to spread disinformation.    President Trump alone has been tabulated to have told some 10,000 lies or misleading statements since being sworn into office.    He lies, even when contradictory evidence is in plain sight, has been documented, and is available.   (See #1 above as an example.)

    c.  Insisting on the Legitimacy of Conflict of Interest.    Trump has tried to legitimate massive, unprecedented levels of conflicts of interest involving his businesses and his taxes.   His refusal to disclose his tax returns, he resistance to creating a real firewall between his presidency and his business, going no further than putting his sons in charge.   It is further troubling because some of his holdings (international hotels' incomes)  "are directly related to major policy decisions he makes on a regular basis, including foreign policy."

    d.  Invoking national emergency power to get what Congress refuses to give him:   money for his wall.  A prime example is his recent declaring a national emergency so that he could transfer funds to build his border wall that Congress explicitly refused to allocate for that purpose.    Congress has the power of the purse, granted in the Constitution.   This is a blatant example of subverting the Constitution to get something Congress had denied him.   It was not a legitimate use of emergency powers in this context.   First, it was not an emergency -- which Trump himself admitted when he said that he just wanted to speed up the process.     This is but one example of his misuse of any powers he legitimately has by using them for inappropriate purposes.    In addition, he claims powers he does not have.    His operating mode is to just do something and see if they let him get away with it.


Ralph